ajb5856

So Jean preferred the "who cares you suck" chant?

Nobody knew that Palmer was Palmer prior to last season. I mean, eventually there were rumblings out of workouts that he may do something but nobody outside the program expected what we got from him. 

Not to burst any bubbles but it reads that Gates focused on defense, and that this James character draws up the out of bounds and specialty plays.

Not to burst any bubbles but it reads that Gates focused on defense, and that this James character draws up the out of bounds and specialty plays.

There’s smoke

3 year contract v 5 year contract, that's the actual disagreement you have.  Correct?
 
You can disagree however, your reasoning falls in line with what Bahe is saying we shouldn't be forced with.  With a 1-year extension, we're back in the same discussion a year from now & recruiting has the same obstacles.  We can't go on, year after year, with speculation.  It does nobody any good whatsoever.  Not Nebraska.  Not Miles.  Not the future players.  Not a future coach.  Nobody.  The best course of action with Moos' comment, is to get behind the coach you just said is coming back and show him your full support.  And that full support is a full contract, extended for a total of 5 years.  (Reminder, I prefer we moved on from Miles, but will accept he's returning).  
 
Nebraska athletics revenue is around $120M with a "profit" of around $8M-$9M and I believe that is after the athletic department donates around $6M to UNL to cover a lot of the scholarships costs across all sports so our "profit" is actually higher.  And this money doesn't include the full share from the B1G that we recently received as my previous numbers are based on prior to the full allotment from the B1G conference.  At least I think they are, if inaccurate, point remains.  Extending Miles 2 additional years for a total of 5 doesn't impact anything negatively with the Huskers.  We're suppose to be a big boy athletic program, but act like a two-bit hooker after a crackdown on the Las Vegas strip. 

Is it possible to have a plan in place for players leaving? Guys don’t commit because there may be a spot. This isn’t Alabama football. Am I missing something? As far as I can tell you can only react to players leaving but you can’t have a plan in place prior to a player making their intentions known. And as far as reacting to attrition, Miles did as good as you can do last off-season.

I think what we’re all longing for are some average middle of the road guys. Players who aren’t bad enough to leave because of lack of playing time, but also not good enough to really make a difference. That way they can stay for four years and nobody will really notice. But we’ll have them for a full four years of nobody noticing. We won’t really make any progress but the turnover rate will be lower. ? Think Brandon Richardson. 

Is it possible to have a plan in place for players leaving? Guys don’t commit because there may be a spot. This isn’t Alabama football. Am I missing something? As far as I can tell you can only react to players leaving but you can’t have a plan in place prior to a player making their intentions known. And as far as reacting to attrition, Miles did as good as you can do last off-season.

Is it possible to have a plan in place for players leaving? Guys don’t commit because there may be a spot. This isn’t Alabama football. Am I missing something? As far as I can tell you can only react to players leaving but you can’t have a plan in place prior to a player making their intentions known. And as far as reacting to attrition, Miles did as good as you can do last off-season.

Is it possible to have a plan in place for players leaving? Guys don’t commit because there may be a spot. This isn’t Alabama football. Am I missing something? As far as I can tell you can only react to players leaving but you can’t have a plan in place prior to a player making their intentions known. And as far as reacting to attrition, Miles did as good as you can do last off-season.

One other thing that I believe plays into our intent of schedule is that the condensed Big Ten schedule that made us play Boston College, Michigan State, the good Minnesota, Creighton, and Kansas in basically a 2 week span made things difficult. 1) It took away a chunk of open dates to add to the difficulty of non-conference scheduling and 2) the toughness of that stretch increased the risk of scheduling another juggernaut making it almost suicidal. We simply could not take the risk, especially with other factors involved including the coach and his standing. This is all separate from the fact that we just got completely screwed when it came to the ability of some of our lesser foes to actually play basketball and the perception of the Big Ten this year 

Don't know if this is posted elsewhere but did anyone catch Jerry Palm on 1620 this afternoon? He actually said that outside of Nebraska winning the Big Ten Tournament that we have no shot at a bid. He said due to the logjam of medicore major conference teams that even with wins over Penn State, Michigan in the quarters, then Michigan State or whoever, and then losing to whoever in the championship game, that still wouldn't give us enough quality wins. So there's that...

Don't know if this is posted elsewhere but did anyone catch Jerry Palm on 1620 this afternoon? He actually said that outside of Nebraska winning the Big Ten Tournament that we have no shot at a bid. He said due to the logjam of medicore major conference teams that even with wins over Penn State, Michigan in the quarters, then Michigan State or whoever, and then losing to whoever in the championship game, that still wouldn't give us enough quality wins. So there's that...

I dont disagree. RPI isn't the best tool there is. What I don't know is if these quadrants are being used formally or just kind of to sort teams and glance at wins in a different manner. In the past, when throwing out comparisons between teams during games/bracketology shows/etc they would put up random records and top wins sometimes using top 25, top 50, top 75, or top 100. 

I think it makes sense. The thought is to give more value to road/neutral wins. They used to just say what teams' records were against top 50, top 100, etc. but this way you're giving more value for beating Michigan on the road or neutral site vs at home. Let's be honest if we beat Michigan at home it's not the same as another team going to Michigan and winning. In the past those two wins would simply be tabbed top 50 wins on the sheet. 

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; Neutral 1-50; Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; Neutral 51-100; Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; Neutral 101-200; Away 136-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; Neutral 201-plus; Away 241-plus.

I think it makes sense. The thought is to give more value to road/neutral wins. They used to just say what teams' records were against top 50, top 100, etc. but this way you're giving more value for beating Michigan on the road or neutral site vs at home. Let's be honest if we beat Michigan at home it's not the same as another team going to Michigan and winning. In the past those two wins would simply be tabbed top 50 wins on the sheet. 

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; Neutral 1-50; Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; Neutral 51-100; Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; Neutral 101-200; Away 136-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; Neutral 201-plus; Away 241-plus.

A couple have mentioned it, but it's a real testament to the talent and depth of this team that we can go out, play so poorly, and still notch the win against a Wisconsin. 
 
It wasnt long long ago where if we didn't bring our best against a conference opponent it was lights out, no chance, even against the leagues worst.

A couple have mentioned it, but it's a real testament to the talent and depth of this team that we can go out, play so poorly, and still notch the win against a Wisconsin. 
 
It wasnt long long ago where if we didn't bring our best against a conference opponent it was lights out, no chance, even against the leagues worst.

A couple have mentioned it, but it's a real testament to the talent and depth of this team that we can go out, play so poorly, and still notch the win against a Wisconsin. 
 
It wasnt long long ago where if we didn't bring our best against a conference opponent it was lights out, no chance, even against the leagues worst.

A couple have mentioned it, but it's a real testament to the talent and depth of this team that we can go out, play so poorly, and still notch the win against a Wisconsin. 
 
It wasnt long long ago where if we didn't bring our best against a conference opponent it was lights out, no chance, even against the leagues worst.

A couple have mentioned it, but it's a real testament to the talent and depth of this team that we can go out, play so poorly, and still notch the win against a Wisconsin. 
 
It wasnt long long ago where if we didn't bring our best against a conference opponent it was lights out, no chance, even against the leagues worst.

I'll put this here since there seems to be a lot of lineup/strategy talk lost in other/multiple threads.
 
This is simple. Going forward, if Miles forces opponents to react to us, to our strengths, we will win a lot more games.
 
We have too many weapons to sit back and not play to our strengths.  Too many weapons to sit back and let other teams do their thing. Let's do our thing. Come on Miles, lets do what Frost suggested. That is, make the rest of the big ten react to us. Or whatever he said. So, like the last 10 minutes last night...let's do that for 40 minutes and really jump out on and stomp opponents' throats.
 
Lets get the most mismatches out on the court and get out and run. That's when we're best.
 
1-Watson
2-Taylor
3-Palmer
4-Copeland
5-Roby
Filter in Allen and Gill at the guards. Give Borchardt and Duby a few minutes to spell Roby/Copeland. Jordy, use him in emergencies only. Sorry, take a seat for awhile.
 
Heard it mentioned on the telecast last night, been mentioned in other threads, but that Copeland and Roby 4/5 tandem has got to be a thing. Agin (shoutout Doc Sadler), make the opponent adjust to us. Specifically with Purdue, this forces them to put Haas on either Copeland or Roby. Or they have to set Haas on the bench. "They gotta pick they poison"--Glynn Watson. Pull Haas away from the basket and let Palmer do his thing. Let Watson do his thing. Run the court. Run, run the floor and make Haas gallop. Roby and Copeland can get down the floor twice as fast. I don't care if he beats us inside or gets a few extra rebounds. Those points are going to be meaningless if we get out and run. 
 
More ideas?

I'll put this here since there seems to be a lot of lineup/strategy talk lost in other/multiple threads.
 
This is simple. Going forward, if Miles forces opponents to react to us, to our strengths, we will win a lot more games.
 
We have too many weapons to sit back and not play to our strengths.  Too many weapons to sit back and let other teams do their thing. Let's do our thing. Come on Miles, lets do what Frost suggested. That is, make the rest of the big ten react to us. Or whatever he said. So, like the last 10 minutes last night...let's do that for 40 minutes and really jump out on and stomp opponents' throats.
 
Lets get the most mismatches out on the court and get out and run. That's when we're best.
 
1-Watson
2-Taylor
3-Palmer
4-Copeland
5-Roby
Filter in Allen and Gill at the guards. Give Borchardt and Duby a few minutes to spell Roby/Copeland. Jordy, use him in emergencies only. Sorry, take a seat for awhile.
 
Heard it mentioned on the telecast last night, been mentioned in other threads, but that Copeland and Roby 4/5 tandem has got to be a thing. Agin (shoutout Doc Sadler), make the opponent adjust to us. Specifically with Purdue, this forces them to put Haas on either Copeland or Roby. Or they have to set Haas on the bench. "They gotta pick they poison"--Glynn Watson. Pull Haas away from the basket and let Palmer do his thing. Let Watson do his thing. Run the court. Run, run the floor and make Haas gallop. Roby and Copeland can get down the floor twice as fast. I don't care if he beats us inside or gets a few extra rebounds. Those points are going to be meaningless if we get out and run. 
 
More ideas?

There seems to be a general consensus that Roby should be playing more minutes (25+), yet there also seems to be a consensus that the current rotations are fine and shouldn’t be changed. Not sure I follow this logic. Roby is averaging only 19 minutes per game (which is an abomination IMO). That is what the current rotation allows.  Can’t have it both ways. Either the rotation has to change or Roby’s Minutes stay too low. 
 
If your not willing to start Roby with Copeland and your not willing to play Roby significant minutes at 5, then the minutes just aren’t there. Miles loves his guards and will not play Roby at the 3. Copeland is playing 28 minutes at the 4 and I would expect this to increase to 30+ in conference. That only leaves 10 minutes for Roby at the 4. Please explain where Roby is going to get those other 17-20 minutes